Re: [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try

Randy Dunlap wrote:

I agree with all of these except #4.  Maybe you can reconcile your
preference with that in Documentation/SubmittingPatches, which
contains:

<quote>
The canonical patch message body contains the following:

  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
</quote>

A patch submitter should not need to know the patch receiver's
personal preferences and vary patches based on those.

It's not a personal preference. It's all based on git-applymbox, pretty much.

The SubmittingPatches doc should be updated to clarify that a From line is not needed in the email body, if it is the same as the From line in the RFC822 header.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try
    • From: Henne <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try
    • From: Henne <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try
    • From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try
    • From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
• Next by Date: [PATCH 1/6] Initialize the per-CPU data area.
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] ata-piix: kerneldoc-error-on-ata_piixc.patch 2nd try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]